Healthscare: A Felon's Creation

Big Government.com is now breaking the news that the game plan followed by the Dems to get socialized medicine passed was authored by a federal felon.

Rep. Jan Schakowsky (D-IL) has pushed for a public option within the healthcare debate. Now meet her husband, Robert Creamer.

From biggovernment.com:

Rep. Schakowsky’s husband, Robert Creamer, used to be the leader of Citizen Action/Illinois. He also founded its predecessor, Illinois Public Action, in which Ms. Schakowsky served as Program Director. He runs a political consulting firm, the Strategic Consulting Group, which lists ACORN and the SEIU among its clients and which made $541,000 working for disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich.

Creamer resigned from Citizen Action/Illinois after the FBI began investigating him for bank fraud and tax evasion at Illinois Public Action. He was convicted in 2006 and sentenced to five months in federal prison in Terre Haute, Indiana, plus eleven months of house arrest.

Now while Creamer was in prison, he wrote a book titled Listen to Your Mother: Stand Up Straight! How Progressives Can Win (Seven Locks Press, 2007). In it he outlines how to get socialized medicine rammed down the throats of the American people.

The ten points outlined by Creamer:

• “We must create a national consensus that health care is a right, not a commodity; and that government must guarantee that right.”
• “We must create a national consensus that the health care system is in crisis.”
• “Our messaging program over the next two years should focus heavily on reducing the credibility of the health insurance industry and focusing on the failure of private health insurance.”
• “We need to systematically forge relationships with large sectors of the business/employer community.”
• “We need to convince political leaders that they owe their elections, at least in part, to the groundswell of support of [sic] universal health care, and that they face political peril if they fail to deliver on universal health care in 2009.”
• “We need not agree in advance on the components of a plan, but we must foster a process that can ultimately yield consensus.”
• “Over the next two years, we must design and organize a massive national field program.”
• “We must focus especially on the mobilization of the labor movement and the faith community.”
• “We must systematically leverage the connections and resources of a massive array of institutions and organizations of all types.”
• “To be successful, we must put in place commitments for hundreds of millions of dollars to be used to finance paid communications and mobilization once the battle is joined.”

That was easy, wasn't it? Think about all the games played by the Dems in this battle of socialist proportions. They've followed this almost step-by-step.

More on this story will be hitting the web soon. Please read the article at biggovernment.com. It speaks volumes.

Btw....Schlakowsky and Creamer were in attendance at the "crashed" State Dinner. Could it be another political quid pro quo?

Women Will Be the First Victims of Obamacare

Saturday, the Senate once again ignored the voice of the majority of Americans by voting to continue debate on BHO's push for socialized medicine. While the debate rages on, we are hearing "recommendations" from the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) that changes the guidelines for mammography from annually after age 40 to bi-annually after age 50.

Early detection for cancer of any form is the key to survival, especially breast cancer. Common sense dictates that the earlier it's caught, the more likely a woman is to survive. And breast cancer doesn't discriminate based on age. While rare in women in their 20's, it isn't unheard of. Family history plays a crucial role in determining the risk women face of having to battle breast cancer.

Dr. Bernadine Healy (photo), the first woman to head of the National Institute of Health (NIH) came out strongly against the recommendations though she no longer chairs the NIH.

"I'm saying very powerfully ignore them," Dr. Healy told Chris Wallace in an interview on "Fox News Sunday."

"This will increase the number of women dying of breast cancer. Women in their 40s have a very aggressive kind of breast cancer. They tend to progress fast. And to not screen women in that age group is astounding to me, and it goes against the bulk of individuals who are actually caring for patients. You may save some money, Chris, but you're not going to save lives," she said.

Dr. Healy said that the other "recommendations" concerning annual pap smears for women aren't of as much importance due to the fact that cervical cancer is often slow-growing and that the HPV virus, which causes cervical cancer, often goes away on its own. Recently, the recommendations for annual pap smears were modified to start doing them at age 21 instead of the former guideline of when a girl became sexually active.

Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) has warned that the upcoming legislation to impose socialized medicine on the American people contains a provision that gives the USPSTF rationing power under the public option.

"In section 3131 of that bill, it changes the Preventive Services Task Force to the Clinical Preventive Services Task Force. Then, you go back and you see that that task force on preventive clinical services is tasked with rating A, B, C, D, or I all preventive services. ... And that indicates what would be paid or covered. And this is where the actual link comes, and I'll read it for you. In section 2301, it says, 'All recommendations of the Preventive Services Task Force' -- that's the group that did the mammograms -- 'and the Task Force on Community Preventive Services, as in existence on the day before the date of the enactment of this act, shall be considered to be recommendations of the Task Force on Clinical Preventive Services.'"

Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL), a breast cancer survivor, disagreed in an interview on "This Week with George Stephanopolus." She claims that the idea of changing screening guidelines is being blown out of proportion. If anyone should know the importance of early detection, it should be her. But I guess the whole 'D' thing after her name has clouded her judgment.

"We have to make sure that we're not forgetting about the people. And that's what the task force forgot about this week, is that we're not thinking about big, amorphous blobs of -- of people. Making -- these recommendations say that we can trade one life to save the angst and anxiety in a -- a larger group of women, and that's totally inappropriate, but that's also why major experts, medical experts, the cancer society, the colon foundation all came out against this, and that won't be controlling in the final legislation."

If anyone has forgotten about people, Ms. Schultz, it is you and your fellow lefties in Congress. Time and again you have ignored the will of the majority of Americans who do NOT want the government involved in their health issues. But yet you feel that you know what's best, eh? You represent the problem with government interference.

I tend to side with Dr. Healy due to the fact that it makes perfect sense to have screenings as early as possible to detect cancer in its infant form. THAT will save lives. What Obamacare will do is take them.

Hey government wonks!!! Keep your hands off my casabas!!!

Note: For another great post on Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her agenda, check out The Right Guy.

Want to Look Better? That'll Be 5%, Please.

Last year, I decided to have my first elective "cosmetic" procedure done to enhance my looks. After wearing glasses since the third grade, I had PRK laser surgery to correct eyesight that had gotten so bad that contacts were not an option, and I had a hard time reading the big "E" at the top of the eye chart. Had I waited and had it done next year, I may have been paying a 5% tax on the procedure.

In the Senate version of the hideous health care bill is a provision that would impose a 5% tax on all elective cosmetic surgery. Botox treatments (Pelosi is probably hyperventilating), laser vision correction, nose jobs, and liposuction would all be taxed. The tax would apply to all procedures done after January 1, 2010.

The provision of the bill reads as follows:

Page 2045 SEC. 9017. EXCISE TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES. (a) IN GENERAL.-Subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following new chapter: ''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES ''Sec. 5000B. Imposition of tax on elective cosmetic medical procedures. ''SEC. 5000B. IMPOSITION OF TAX ON ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES. ''(a) IN GENERAL.-There is hereby imposed on any cosmetic surgery and medical procedure a tax equal to 5 percent of the amount paid for such procedure (determined without regard to this section), whether paid by insurance or otherwise. ''(b) COSMETIC SURGERY AND MEDICAL PROCEDURE.-For purposes of this section, the term 'cosmetic surgery and medical procedure' means any cosmetic surgery (as defined in section 213(d)(9)(B)) or other similar procedure which- ''(1) is performed by a licensed medical professional, and ''(2) is not necessary to ameliorate a deformity arising from, or directly related to, a congenital abnormality, a personal injury resulting from an accident or trauma, or disfiguring disease. ''(c) PAYMENT OF TAX.- ''(1) IN GENERAL.-The tax imposed by this section shall be paid by the individual on whom the procedure is performed. ''(2) COLLECTION.-Every person receiving a payment for procedures on which a tax is imposed under subsection (a) shall collect the amount of the tax from the individual on whom the procedure is performed and remit such tax quarterly to the Secretary at such time and in such manner as provided by the Secretary. ''(3) SECONDARY LIABILITY.-Where any tax imposed by subsection (a) is not paid at the time payments for cosmetic surgery and medical procedures are made, then to the extent that such tax is not collected, such tax shall be paid by the person who performs the procedure.''. (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.-The table of chapters for subtitle D of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended by this Act, is amended by inserting after the item relating to chapter 48 the following new item: ''CHAPTER 49-ELECTIVE COSMETIC MEDICAL PROCEDURES''. (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.-The amendments made by this section shall apply to procedures performed on or after January 1, 2010.

Many people (especially women) take plastic surgery to an extreme. They have numerous nose jobs, tummy tucks, boob jobs, and face lifts in the name of vanity. A lot of times, they look so fake that any natural beauty they possessed is forever gone. But you know what? THAT'S THEIR CHOICE! They pay for the procedures out-of-pocket. Now the government wants to make sure that the free exchange of money for medical services is hit.

Passage of this provision starts us on a very slippery slope. Today, elective cosmetic surgery. Tomorrow, a tax on tests to monitor diabetes and heart disease. Mark my words. This crowd hasn't met a tax they didn't like.

I always said that if I were to hit the lottery, the first thing I'd get is man-made boobs. Nothing a la Pam Anderson, but something to give me just a little shape. Now it appears that that's just one more dream shattered by the current administration.

Jesse Jackson Disses Black Lawmakers

That race-baiting poverty pimp, Jesse Jackson, has struck again by leveling a statement directed at members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC).

According to the Hill newspaper, Jackson said that any black lawmaker who doesn't vote for the confiscation of freedom in the form of Obamacare can't call themselves black.

"We even have blacks voting against the health care bill," Jackson reportedly said at a Congressional Black Caucus reception Wednesday night honoring the 25th anniversary of the civil rights leader's run for president.

"You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man," the Hill reported him saying.

The remark was a clear shot at Rep. Artur Davis, D-Ala., the only member of the CBC to vote against the House version of the health care legislation.

Davis refused to engage the debate. My congratulations go out to Mr. Davis for not stooping to Jackson's level. Davis seems to realize that the issue is this egregious piece of legislation, not race. Jackson will never make the distinction.

Those of us who have followed the seemingly endless parade of liberal ideas written into a piece of legislation knew that it was only a matter of time before Jesse Jackson and his ilk injected race into the debate on health care reform. It's who he is and what he does.

Imagine the howls from the left had someone in the KKK had made this statement: "You can't vote for health care and call yourself a white man." The statement would be the lead story on every single network in the MSM and would be the headline in every single newspaper that clings to liberal ideology. But since Jesse Jackson has made such a racist statement, it's okay in the eyes of the left.

Jesse Jackson has got jumbo-sized coconut ones for even CONSIDERING making such a statement. It is a slap in the face to every single American who is against this on the basis of the fact that another freedom will be forever lost.

A statement from B & G: You cannot vote for health care and call yourself an American who cares about freedom.

The World of Socialized Medicine

Obamarx and his minions keep pushing this hideous piece of legislation that isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on despite the cries from concerned American citizens. The left is always pointing out the examples of Britain and Canada to support their argument. They may want to rethink that strategy.

The following are stories from Britain and Canada of patients who have lived (and died) under the same system the left wants to implement for us.

To read more stories like these and view the original articles, visit BigGovHealth.

Britain

Linda O’Boyle

When Linda O’Boyle, 64, was diagnosed with cancer, she decided to pay for additional, private treatment out of pocket, hoping to prolong her life. O’Boyle was told that a medication not provided by NHS would increase her chances of fighting the disease. After deciding to use her savings to pay for these outside medications, NHS withdrew their services, including chemotherapy because current government laws ban a patient from combining public and private healthcare. O’Boyle passed away March 26, 2008.

Katie Hilliard

Katie Hilliard, 24, asked to be given a smear test twice, and was refused because she was “too young.” Katie now has cervical cancer, and it has spread to her lymph nodes and lungs. Doctors have given her 11 months to two years to live.

Debbie Hirsts

Debbie Hirsts, 57, was denied access by the NHS to a drug that would have slowed the progression of her breast cancer. With her oncologist’s support, Debbie decided to raise the $120,000 for the medicine herself. The situation changed in December 2007, when Debbie’s doctor told her the NHS would no longer allow her to subsidize the medication. If Debbie decided to pay for the medicine out-of-pocket, she would then need pay for all of her cancer treatments, which she could not afford, and would no longer receive free health benefits from the NHS.

Mark Cannon

Mark Cannon, 30, died eight and a half weeks after being admitted to the hospital with a broken leg. He was clearly distressed and in pain, but he had to wait three days to see the pain team. His father Allan, from Barton Turf, has been campaigning with Mencap to raise awareness of the ingrained discrimination he claims to have encountered from NHS staff towards his son, who had severe learning difficulties and could manage very little speech.

Alan Francis

Alan Francis, a 68-year-old leukaemia patient, was denied a life-saving bone marrow operation by the Health Commission Wales (HCW). The HCW would have refused to fund the operation, which would have entailed taking the marrow from the donor in Australia and flying it to the UK.

Lynda Coghill

Lynda Coghill, was diagnosed with ovarian cancer at 39. At an appointment after surgery and radiation, she told her oncologist she was still bleeding. He did a quick exam, announced she had a new tumor, and said bluntly: “Your chances are slim to none.” He told her to wait a few weeks for the results of a biopsy, then left to treat a patient down the hall. “I looked at the nurse in sheer disbelief,” Ms. Coghill says. “The doctor had proceeded to tell me, in less than 30 seconds, that I was going to die.” She cried for days, unable to eat or sleep. She and her husband planned her funeral. At last, she contacted the sympathetic nurse from the doctor’s office and persuaded her to call for an “unofficial” biopsy report. The tumor was benign. Eight years later, Ms. Coghill remains angry about having been treated “like a numbered object on an assembly line.”

Canada

David Malleau

David Malleau, a 44 year-old truck driver suffered a devastating car accident in 2004 that forced doctors at Hamilton General Hospital to remove a fist-sized piece of bone from his skull to relieve pressure on his brain. Once the swelling subsided and he was ready for surgery in March 2005, Malleau was sent home and placed on a waiting list. Three months passed. Then six. He waited at home, a prisoner unable to leave the house for fear something would hit the exposed side of his brain - for him a potentially fatal incident. In the end, it took nearly a year before he could get skull replacement surgery.

Jordan Johanson

Jordan Johanson, 18, died at Rockyview Hospital in late March. He died following a 12-hour wait for surgery on his appendix. Darcy Johanson, the boy’s father, said “Young kids shouldn’t be dying like this. If something can be done to fix it, they should get on with it.”

Lindsay McCreith

Lindsay McCreith, 66, was told he had a brain tumor but that he would have to wait four and a half months to obtain an MRI to rule out the possibility that it was cancerous. Unwilling to risk the progression of what might be cancer, Mr. McCreith obtained an MRI in Buffalo, which revealed the tumor was malignant. Even with this diagnosis in hand, the Ontario system still refused to provide timely treatment, so Mr. McCreith had surgery in Buffalo to remove the cancerous brain tumor in March, 2006. In Ontario, Mr. McCreith would have waited eight months for surgery, according to his family doctor. Eight months is enough time for a cancer to worsen, spread and progress to an irreversible stage. Had Mr. McCreith not paid $26,600 for immediate care, he might be dead today.

Sheila Nunn

Sheila Nunn, a Kitchener woman suffering seizures, was told by her doctor that she urgently needed an MRI scan. She was also told she would have to wait three months to have it done locally. Nunn, who had been suffering blackouts, memory loss, confusion and seizures for two months, decided to take action: She paid $1,100 to have the MRI scan done in Michigan.

Those in support of socialized medicine keep telling us that there's no rationing of services. Evidently, they've never heard the stories of these people who have lived it.

Hey government wonks! Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining!

Guest Post from Bungalow Bill

This gem is from Bungalow Bill, the man responsible for unleashing my babble on the blogophere. His blog was the inspiration for me to start blogging, so he gets the blame for those of you who may not like what I have to say. He's great!

From Voting Against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act to End of Life Counseling: Obama's Disregard for Human Life

Barack Obama is going around the country saying it’s crazy that opponents of his healthcare plan says he wants to pull the plug on Grandma. But is it crazy?

As a former resident of Illinois, I watched Obama come upon the national scene. I watched how he bullied his opponents through the courts to basically run unopposed from the Illinois state Senate to the US Senate. It was in the Illinois state Senate that I watched Obama’s total disregard for human life before he had the chance to defend himself from pulling the plug accusations.

In Illinois, the very idea of protecting babies which survived abortions was debated on the floor of the state house. The Born Alive Infant Protection Act stopped the act of taking the life of a new born baby that survived an abortion by placing that baby in a portion of the hospital to die. It was Barack Obama who opposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. In fact he opposed it four times. He was the only state Senator to oppose the bill in Illinois.

This got virtually no national coverage during the election—but it did get a little. During the election, Obama asked about his voting record on the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. Obama lied about his vote. He later claimed he didn’t understand the bill on the floor. Obama’s campaign had to do the damage control by admitting that Obama did in fact vote against four times. For the rest of the campaign, Obama’s lie and his voting record was ignored.

Now he stands in front of Americans acting like he has a respect for life. I have to wonder if Obama voted against saving the life of a new born infant, does he really care about grandma and grandpa?

Obama has lied about votes in the past when it comes to voting on medial laws that protect life. He claimed he didn’t understand the bill he was voting on in Illinois. I look at the similarities of Obama’s current campaign to forever change healthcare in America and his votes in the Illinois Senate. We recently had the I don’t understand the bill moment when he admitted to a liberal blogger that he hadn’t read that portion of the bill. So basically, Obama is going around the country promising grandma will be okay while having this horrible track record towards respecting life and admitting he hasn’t read all the bill. Gee, considering Obama’s honesty, I’d be a little worried if I was grandma and grandpa right now. Especially when you mix Obama’s voting record with the long list of government failures like Social Security, which may be busted as early as 2011 now. Nationalized healthcare and the possibility of rationing is something I don’t even want to take a chance over to find out if Obama is being truthful.

Guest Post from Amusing Bunni

With all the healthcare hoopla, I decided to post this great take on the whole situation from Amusing Bunni. She's a great gal with plenty to say. She also has a great squirrel army that you can view at her site.

A New View of ObamaCare

The More I read about this Psychotic Horror Story straight out of the mind of a madman.....aka Dr b hussein obama, the more nauseated I become.

I was monitoring my favorite bloggers and tweeters today while slaving away at work, and people were making excellent points. I won't name everyone who posted great updates, I don't want to leave anyone out. I was inspired.
Basically, just read your dashboards and blogrolls. Everyone who is a Patriotic, Thinking person has been burning up the Blogosphere today as new revelations come out. They are the best reporters out there, and I happy I found you all to keep informed.

I made a few tweets myself, on my secret alter-ego twitter name. The highlights of which were:

Horrifying Information on the Proposed HealthCare Bill. If Obugger has his way, good luck staying alive...you'll be a burden to the "system". Just go die somewhere already for the “common good”. There are "death with dignity schedules". The fascist government wants to make sure seniors know it is time to commit suicide, to SAVE THE SYSTEM MONEY.

On Page 16 of the over 1,000+ pages of mendacious medical nonsense...
aka H.R. Bill 3200, is a provision making individual private medical insurance ILLEGAL . That's right, no more private health insurance. Put yourself in the hands of Obama's minions. You know, those domestic terriorists and ACORN community agitators. I wouldn't let them within 500 miles of me! Plus the fact that this Dr. Mengela in training hasn't even bothered to read the Bill he want's to shove down our throats. Why care about what's in there? Just cram it through to get your Socialist agenda firmly in place. Who needs health care, they're all gonna die anyway! Might as well do it now and decrease the surplus population! (He makes Ebenzer Scrooge look like Mother Teresa).

In case You missed anything: http://bit.ly/Vs3QL The jug eared jag off, Odumbo, needs a brain and soul transplant, he doesn't know ANYTHING, just his fascist agenda! At least this time he actually admitted it!

So those are the highlights (LOWLIGHTS) of what I read & tweeted today. For the Latest Updates, you can always go directly to Drudge Report Now they're saying Obugger is whining that opponents are "hinting at scare tactics". Isn't that rich & the pot(head) calling the kettle black? Obama told NBC on Tuesday: “Doing nothing means that you’re going to lose what you have . . . Because on the current trajectory, your premiums are going to double again over the next five to 10 years.” Yeah, Right! At least we'll be alive and still have a country & hopefully a roof over our heads, you psychotic power-mad puke! He would know from "Scare Tactics" typical liberal twisting. He learned a lot at the marxist wells in Kenya, didn't he?

Ewwww, he is making me angrier by the minute, forget by the day!
So now, in order to lighten the collective mood, & to keep my head from exploding,
I will publish below some medical information from Obummers' Homeland.
Since he's an African Citizen, born & raised there, I'm sure he'll also be instituting these lovely medical care ideas into his fiasco of a Health Care Program. He'll probably hide them somewhere in an obscure sub-section - but that's why you have the Bunni - to bring them to light.

These are Straight from the Medical Workers Case Notes & Charts in his Mother (and Father) land. He'll be letting these geniuses come "practice" medicine here illegally in the USA, to displace even more American jobs.

Now I am publishing it here first. My Pithy Comments are in Purple.
You'll have an idea of what's in store for you soon. Read it and weep
(Or buy a medical care book and start practicing on your own).


Hospital records in Zimbabwe . (The trouble with English!)
Actual writings in Mpumalanga Hospital Register

1. The patient refused autopsy. (Did Michael Jackson Rise from the Dead already?)

2. The patient has no previous history of suicides. (That is, Until Obugger became pResident)

3. Patient has left white blood cells at another hospital. ( Uhhhhh, Yeah!)

4. Patient's medical history has been remarkably insignificant with only a 40 pound weight gain in the past three days. (Must have ate all the crap Barry's been dishing out)

5. She has no rigors or shaking chills, but her husband states she was very hot in bed last night. (That can't be MooBacca, they're talking about)

6. Patient has chest pain if she lies on her left side for over a year.

7. On the second day the knee was better, and on the third day it disappeared. (Oh, that we could say the same thing about Barry!)

8. The patient is tearful and crying constantly. She also appears to be depressed. (I'm sure this malady started on November 5, 2008 - Mine Did!)

9. The patient has been depressed since she began seeing me in 1993. (Barry, is that when you showed your ugly mug to the patient?)

10. Discharge status: Alive but without my permission. (Of course, Obugger must give you HIS permission to live - that Egomaniac!)

11. Healthy appearing decrepit 69-year old male, mentally alert but forgetful.
(Hey, did Biden's chart show up there somewhere too?)

12. Patient had waffles for breakfast and anorexia for lunch.

13. She is numb from her toes down. (Obugger is numb from the NECK UP)

14. While in ER, she was examined, x-rated and sent home.

15. The skin was moist and dry.

16. Occasional, constant, infrequent headaches.

17. Patient was alert and unresponsive.

18. Rectal examination revealed a normal size thyroid. (Bambi, please stand up)

19. She stated that she had been constipated for most of her life, until she got a divorce. (Hillary can dream)

20. I saw your patient today, who is still under our car for physical therapy. (Yeah, that will save time, just run them over on the way to the chicken shack).

21. Both breasts are equal and reactive to light and accommodation.

22. Examination of genitalia reveals that he is citrus sized. (Make that Pea sized, in bummer's case...that's why he over-compensates)

23. The lab test indicated abnormal lover function.

24. Skin: somewhat pale but present. (Again, Jacko, please go away already)!

25. The pelvic exam will be done later on the floor.

26. Large brown stool ambulating in the hall. (OBUMMER, please stay out of the hospital, you're too busy raping the Country).

27. Patient has two teenage children, but no other abnormalities. (I hate to pick on kids, but I feel for the two of their spawn, even the dog!)

Yes, I'm sure Dr. Obummer completed his residency over there! I wish He would have stayed there, perhaps he'll be returning soon...when he's IMPEACHED!

Breaking: BHO Ready to Drop Public Option

About 30 minutes ago, AP reported that Team Obama is ready to drop the public option to healthcare. Read more from Drudge. I'll put my two cents in another day.

Etiquette for Protesting

Michelle Malkin has done it once again in summing up an issue. Her somewhat snarky style (which I love) makes me wonder if Dr. Dave didn't have a sister.

The Etiquette Czar's Rules for Patriotic Protest
by Michelle Malkin

The White House press office is now Miss Manners' office. President Obama's press secretary, Robert Gibbs, took to the television airwaves this week to criticize congressional town hall protesters for "yelling." Gibbs' underling, Bill Burton, chastised voters not to "disrupt" and "scream." Instead, he advised America to engage in a "spirited debate about health care, a real vigorous conversation about it."

What constitutes "spirited"? How do they define "vigorous"? When does forceful dissent become intolerable disruption? Herewith, the Obama Etiquette Czar's Official Rules for Patriotic Protest. Keep this guide with you at all times to avoid being flagged by the Democratic politeness monitors.

-- No shouting. Congressional representatives cannot sell Obamacare with mobs of unruly senior citizens and small-business owners interrupting to press them on specific sections of the bill. Limit your objections to a library whisper and only challenge your lawmakers with hushed, dulcet tones. Otherwise, you will scare them, and they will be forced to hide behind teleconference calls, sick children at hospitals or union bosses.

If, on the other hand, you are attending a presidential town hall to show your affection and approbation, "spirited" chanting is acceptable.

Don't: "HANDS OFF HEALTH CARE!" and "READ THE BILL!"

Do: "I LOVE YOU, BARACK!" "AMEN!" and "YES, WE CAN!"

Also permitted: Shouting at historic inaugurations to protest war (as legions of Code Pink activists did in 2005 during the president's address) and shouting, "We didn't cross the borders, the borders crossed us!" to protest immigration enforcement (as thousands of illegal alien supporters did during raucous rallies in 2006).

Do refrain from boisterous shrieking against those who accuse you of lacking patriotism -- unless you are Hillary Clinton, who bellowed at the top of her lungs in 2003:

"I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic. We should stand up and say we are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration."

-- No laughing. Snickering at proponents of nationalized health care is rude, bordering on political terrorism. Stifle all derisive chuckling at bogus statistics and denials that Obamacare will lead to long lines and rationed care. That would be "evil-mongering," as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid put it on Thursday.

If, however, you are a member of Congress confronted with silly questions about whether you have read the bill, feel free to giggle. For tips on executing acceptable levels of cackling, take a cue from House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer. "If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn't read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes," Hoyer told CNSNews.com while choking back laughter after a recent news conference. "I'm laughing because a) I don't know how long this bill is going to be, but it's going to be a very long bill." Tee-hee-hee.

-- No Nazi comparisons. References to fascism are ugly and un-American. Swastikas have no place in debates about nationalizing 20 percent of the economy. Swastikas may, however, still be used as substitutes for the "S" in "BusHitler" and tattoos on the forehead of Darth Cheney.

-- No boorish questions. "Real vigorous conversation" requires town hall attendees to formulate queries that will encourage true debate. This is not the time to ask why Congress won't subject itself to the health mandates it wants to foist on every other American. This is not the time to ask how the White House will pay for the massive Obamacare bureaucracy without raising taxes on the middle class. The White House endorsed model citizen questioning at its East Room health care town halls in March and July, including this:

"Hi, Mr. President. I'm a member of SEIU, and I'm down here in Fairfax County working on Change That Works. What can I do, as a member of the union, to help you with your reform bill?"

-- No mean signs. That 11-year-old daughter of a Massachusetts Obama donor and campaigner who was randomly chosen to criticize the scary posters held up by town hall protesters in New Hampshire was right. "Mean" signs are, well, mean. Never mind the placards that blared "Bush is the only dope worth shooting" in Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco and the assassination art depicting former President Bush with a gun to his head in Chicago. "Obama is a socialist" is a sign too far and cannot be tolerated in a civil society. Period.

Instead, print out the "STAND UP FOR HEALTH REFORM" signs helpfully produced by Obama's Organizing for America, and burn your "Don't Tread on Me" flags. Such rebellious sentiments are dangerous incitements to violence.

To those of you who can't abide by The Rules: Shhhhhhhhh.

Obamacare: Remember Terri Schiavo

While watching the nightly Fox News Channel programs cover the healthcare/mob/Pelosi/Hoyer/townhall debate, it dawned on me. There are people like Terri Schindler Schiavo who are icons of the dark side of Obamacare.

Terri Schiavo was the young Florida woman who went into a debilitative state after her heart stopped briefly in 1990. The heart stoppage was caused by a potassium deficiency brought on by a bout with bulimia. Terri's brain was deprived of oxygen, and she was of limited capabilities from that time.

A long legal battle was waged in the weeks before her death. Her husband, Michael, had insisted that Terri never wanted to live in such a state and petitioned to have her feeding tube removed and water withheld. Her family argued that Terri did respond to environmental stimuli and deserved to live. They begged Michael to sign Terri over to them, but to no avail. On March 18, 2005, Michael Schiavo won the right to remove Terri's feeding tube. She died 13 days later.

The issue of Terri Schiavo begs the question: What if this had occurred under the present administration? We can almost write the script.

Terri would be labeled an unproductive citizen of society. Government bureaucrats would order her medical care withheld as soon as she was accepted as a resident of the hospice. The euthanasia crowd would physically block her family from trying to save her.

Numerous accountants funded by George Soros would study the cost-effectiveness of Terri's care down to the last bed sheet used. When their reports were filed, her family's wishes and willingness to assume all responsibility for her care would matter not. Pro-death supporters would be on hand to verbally assault the family and call them fascists for wanting her to live. Their cries of "greedy family" would become the battle cry of the left.

The media would be on hand to make sure that all the pro-lifers were painted as a bunch of nuts with swastika tattoos. The SEIU and ACORN would be called upon to rough up those who dared speak out in defense of a brain-damaged woman who was being starved to death. CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, and NBC would have a 24/7 live feed to the White House and Supreme Court to be able to identify those protesting Terri's demise.

As the end draws near, a call is made to the White House. Obama, never one to let a good crisis go to waste, boards Air Force One and flies directly to Tampa. Surrounded by Secret Service, the faithful left genuflect and lay down palm leaves during his walk to the entrance of the hospice. He steps inside as members of the Black Panthers quickly block the entrance.

Minutes later, the press is called to the entrance of the hospice. They quickly jockey for position in the rush to get first coverage of the events about to unfold. As they wait, prayers and hymns can be heard from the pro-life crowd who had been ordered to stay three blocks away. Suddenly, the doors open.

Obama steps to the podium full of microphones with a look of sadness on his face. He begins to speak.

"Fellow Americans, WE WON!" he says as he breaks into a smile.

The media no longer restrains their glee as Dear Leader raises his hand to the heavens while clutching a copy of the legislation responsible for this whole chain of events.

[UPDATE: I've been told about the story of Barbara Wagner and her dealings with the Oregon health system. It's a microcosm of what the left wants to implement nationwide. Thanks to Clay and Teresa for bringing it up!]

With Family Like This...

I got a call from my dad today. We talked for a while, but it's never an in-depth conversation when it comes to my dad; our relationship is complicated.

My dad is a die-hard Democrat (He thinks Hillary is hot). While there a lot of other issues I have with my dad, this only adds to the complexity of our relationship. You would think that being a veteran, he would be more right-leaning; not so. In fact, he takes every opportunity to tell me how W and the GOP are to blame for today's problems. I've got to have the patience of Job to get through a phone call with him.

Today, the issue of Obamacare came up. My dad seems to think that being that he gets his healthcare through the VA that he's going to continue to get anything he needs. I tried to explain that under this hideous legislation, it wouldn't make a dime's worth of difference whether it was through the VA or not; rationing will be the norm and cost effectiveness the bottom line. He said the Dems would never let that happen. How blind are those who refuse to see!

He then went on to tell me about how he found out that he can get his Medicare premiums paid through welfare because of his income. I asked if he really wanted the government to have that much control over his life. His response? "If they're willing to pay for it, why should I have to?" I almost dropped the phone.

In the same line of conversation, he also told me that he found out that he can get a cell phone through welfare. I asked him why should I have to pay for his cell phone. His answer? "I paid into the system all those years. Why shouldn't I get something out of it?" I calmly tried to tell him that no one should be paying for what other people want. I'm pretty sure I used the term "theft" by the government. Then all hell broke loose. He seems convinced that the Dems are just trying to help those who can't help themselves. I realized at this point that calm disagreement wasn't going to change his mind.

It's bad enough when you see strangers with this attitude, but when it's family, it makes you even crazier.

All I can say is this: Mom, thanks for raising me. I love you with all my heart. You done did good.

Obamacare: Screw This!!! I'm Pissed!!!

This article was put up on cnsnews.com on July 30, and I somehow missed it. This hits close to home, and it scares the hell out of me.

House Health-Care Bill Would Establish 'Medical Homes' for the Elderly and Disabled
Thursday, July 30, 2009
By Marie Magleby

A copy of H.R. 3200, America Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 sits on the desk of House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., after the markup on the health care bill was postponed on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday, July 29, 2009. (AP photo/Susan Walsh)

(CNSNews.com) - The House health-care reform bill proposes to decrease hospital visits by establishing a “medical home pilot program” for elderly and disabled Americans.

Such a medical home would not require a physician to be on the staff, and therefore could be run solely by nurse practitioners and physician assistants. Medical homes also would practice “evidence-based” medicine, which advocates only the use of medical treatments that are supported by effectiveness research.

But physicians’ groups say the legislation could lead to restrictions on which treatments may be used for certain conditions, despite the fact that some patients might require a unique or unconventional approach. It also may lead to dumping Medicare/Medicaid patients in facilities that are not required to have physicians on staff.

The Center for Medicine in the Public Interest (CMPI) expressed its concerns in a report that explains why statistical evidence does not always reflect reality of effective medicine.

“‘One size fits all’ rarely does,” the report said. “From clothes to shoes to hats, few people find that items carrying that label work with their individual bodies. So why do we entrust the health of our bodies -- one of the most important assets we have -- to a one-size-fits-all mentality?”

According to CMPI and individual physicians, however, this one-size-fits-all mentality is just what congressional health-care reform suggests.

“Unfortunately, policies being advanced under the guise of ‘evidence-based medicine’ (EBM) could do just that,” the CMPI report said. “The idea behind EBM, empowering physicians with sound evidence to incorporate into their treatment decisions for individual patients, is a good one.

“Unfortunately, EBM now is being distorted by government bureaucrats and HMOs in ways that impose top-down, one-size-fits-all restrictions on patients and their healthcare providers.”

Rather than enforcing a formulaic approach to medicine based on statistical and clinical research, CMPI says health-care reform should preserve physicians’ autonomy to use the research in conjunction with their experience and knowledge of the patient.

”It is so critically important for the physician to maintain his or her ability to combine study findings with their expertise and knowledge of the individual in order to make the optimal treatment decisions. Evidence-based medicine in its present, distorted form emphasizes just one aspect of the clinical pie over all the others,” the report found.

Kathryn Serkes of the American Association for Physicians and Surgeons echoed the observation.

“There is no typical patient,” Serkes told CNSNews.com. “Every patient is different from a medical perspective. If we have evidence-based medicine that basically says ‘well, we start at treatment one, which leads you to treatment two, to treatment three to treatment four. In practice, that doesn’t work for the patient. That’s the ‘art’ part of the art and science of medicine. That’s what we still need doctors to do, is to figure out what’s right for the patient.”

In the long run, according to CMPI, evidence-based medicine may not even cut costs as Congress suggests it would.

“Evidence-based medicine may provide transitory savings in the short term, but the same patient who takes the cheapest available statin today may very well be the patient costing you -- the taxpayer, the policymaker, the thought-leader, the sister, the spouse -- big bucks when that patient ends up in the hospital because of improperly treated cardiovascular disease,” .

“The repercussions of choosing short-term thinking over long-term results and cost-based medicine over patient-based are pernicious to both the public purse and the public health,” the CMPI report said.

Provisions for the medical home pilot program are an amendment to the Social Security Act, which governs the administration of Medicare and Medicaid services.

The medical home is an approach to medical practice that “facilitates partnerships” between patients and physicians, according to the proposed bill.

The pilot program targets Medicare beneficiaries who have a high medical “risk score” or who require regular monitoring, advising or treatment. This currently applies to more than 22 million Americans, according to Kaiser Family Foundation statistics.

At least $1.5 billion would be redirected from the Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Fund to fund the medical homes, “in addition to funds otherwise available,” according to the bill.

The Senate health-care reform bill also includes provisions for medical homes, although to lesser detail than the House bill.

If this portion of the legislation passes through Congress, medical homes will be part of the greater health-care reform experiment known as "the public (health insurance) option."

According to the committee, the provisions for medical homes will make the public option a stronger competitor against private health insurance companies.

“The public health insurance option will be empowered to implement innovative delivery reform initiatives so that it is a nimble purchaser of health care and gets more value for each health care dollar,” the House Committee on Energy and Commerce’s summary says about the bill.

Medical homes are tied to “comparative effectiveness research” via something called “evidence-based medicine.”

“It will expand upon the experiments put forth in Medicare and be provided the flexibility to implement value-based purchasing, accountable care organizations, medical homes, and bundled payments. These features will ensure the public option is a leader in efficient delivery of quality care, spurring competition with private plans,” the committee’s summary also said.

A statement by the American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) said that the effectiveness of the medical home model should be carefully evaluated before applying the model far and wide.

“There should be more research to demonstrate the benefits and continuing costs associated with implementation of the full (patient-centered medical home) model,” the ACEP statement said.

“Demonstration projects being conducted by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services must be carefully evaluated. There should be proven value in healthcare outcomes for patients and reduced costs to the healthcare system before there is widespread implementation of this model.”

The proposal, meanwhile, specifically allows for facilities to be run by staff who do not possess medical degrees – including nurses and nurse practitioners.

More caring from the compassionate left. Hear me when I say this; I WILL DIE before letting my kids get put in one of these homes. Anyone with disabled or elderly loved ones needs to heed the warning we've just gotten.

*crying*

Here Comes the SS

Foxnews.com is reporting that the White House is vowing to 'punch back twice as hard' to defend Democrats from criticism should they support Obamacare.

In a counseling session on how to handle disruptions by concerned citizens, senators were told to emphasize issues such as insurers denying coverage for pre-existing conditions as their polling numbers show it's a winner. They feel this could sway independents, women, seniors, and rural voters. Evidently, they haven't stepped out of the ivory towers long enough to learn WE DON'T WANT IT.

Harry Reid (D-NV) has accused the Republican party of organizing these disruptions. Evidently, he doesn't think we're smart enough to speak our minds on our own.

"These are nothing more than destructive efforts to interrupt a debate that we should have, and are having," Reid said Thursday. "They are doing this because they don't have any better ideas.

They have no interest in letting the negotiators, even though few in number, negotiate. It's really simple: they're taking their cues from talk show hosts, Internet rumor-mongerers ... and insurance rackets."

Hey Harry! What about all the libs who interrupted debate time and again when Bush was president? How is what the American people doing now any different? I forgot...it's different when you're a conservative or libertarian. We're just a bunch of redneck racists according to Murtha. Did that statement sit well with you?

Also Thursday, the AFL-CIO announced plans to mobilize labor activists to attend town hall meetings in 50 congressional districts this month to counter the conservative protesters. You know...the way ACORN bussed in people to protest AIG executive bonuses AT THEIR HOMES. At least we respect privacy enough to take it to taxpayer-funded property.

White House aides David Axelrod and Jim Messina traveled to the Capitol for their presentation to Democratic senators. Senators saw videos of disruptions at events held by House members, and were told to organize their events more carefully as well as work with labor unions and other friendly groups to generate enthusiasm.

Messina, the deputy White House chief of staff, also said any advertising attack would be met with a bigger response, these officials said.

"If you get hit, we will punch back twice as hard," Messina told senators, according to two people in the room.

"It's a challenge, no question about it, and you've got to get out there and make the case," Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., said afterward. "This is not the time for the faint-hearted."

You're right, Mr. Dodd, because WE THE PEOPLE are going to fight this with everything we have. And should you choose to ignore us, start scanning the want ads.

Folks, we've got them on the ropes, and they don't know whether to crap or go blind. The Dems are meeting during the August recess to get their ducks in a row so that in September, they're loaded for bear. KEEP SPEAKING no matter how dreary the outlook is. It's our only chance.

Coburn on Obamacare: This Guy's Got Cojones

It seems that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is giving the smackdown to Congress. The senator/doctor is now introducing an amendment that would require all members of Congress to enroll in any healthcare legislation that is passed.

"So that we feel the same effects of that plan as every other American that ends up in it and the data shows that a 104 million Americans are going to end up in that plan, so what's good for us ought to be good for everybody else," the Oklahoma Republican and doctor said.

Democrats are already bristling at the idea because they claim that the assumption will be that a public option (government run socialist plan) will be the only plan offered. At first it may not be, but eventually....

"Members of Congress will very likely be in the same situation as every other American will be vis-à-vis the public option," White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said. "They can choose it, or they can not choose it. So the idea that members of Congress would be forced into it disrupts the whole notion that underlies it -- that this is a choice." [Author's note: Mr. Gibbs left out the words "for now."]

Surprisingly, other Democratic senators supported this amendment that came out of the Senate Health committee. Sens. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., and Barbara Mikulski, D-Md. joined most of the Republicans in supporting the amendment. The lone Republican "nay" vote on the committee was Senator Judd Gregg. According to Coburn, Gregg's rationale for voting against it was that he didn't want to subject ANYONE, including fellow senators, to a public option.

The amendment would have to be merged with other versions from other committees, and some political analysts say that it may not survive.

"If I had to make a guess, I'd say that they will try to create a requirement to be in a public plan with a number of loopholes that would enable most senators to avoid the requirement," said Michael Franc of the Heritage Foundation.

Dear Leader seems to be in favor of this amendment.

"You know I would be happy to abide by the same benefit package," Obama said. "I'm going to be honest with you; I'm the president of the United States so I've got a doctor following me every minute," he said, drawing laughter. Yeah...that was hysterical. Do we get that too? What a big piece of fecal matter!

In my opinion, the high-ranking Dems are supporting this for one reason: They know that while it has a chance, it may not make the final cut. Then they can say they supported it and had no hand in killing it if it dies.

I must give credit where credit is due. Tom Coburn seems hell-bent on exposing and trying to make sure that, should this pass, Congress is put on the same playing field as everyone else.

Now there's change I can hope for.

Obamacare: Let the Earmarks Begin!

Get ready folks. Here we go again.

It seems that the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions has already approved a government-run healthcare program that creates 84 new programs and allows for rationing of care through the Comparative Effectiveness Board. These are the people who will decide whether or not your treatment or the treatment of your loved ones is cost-effective. So much for being a free country!

Inside the legislation is also an earmark that Senator Tom Coburn (R-Oklahoma) is criticizing as the largest in history.

"It has the biggest earmark in history, and it's a mandatory earmark that never ends," he points out. "It's $10 billion to Senator [Tom] Harkin's subcommittee, which will be used for bicycle trails and jungle gyms, and farmers markets, and lighting -- supposedly under the guise of prevention and wellness." Have you ever seen what happens to a playground erected in a Great Society community? The gangs can't wait to tag it, and from there it becomes a veritable marketplace for the drug dealers. It's almost as certain as the sun rising in the east.

Coburn say the partisan Senate healthcare bill contains no limitations on abortion or the taxpayer funding of abortion, and will leave an estimated 36 million Americans uninsured. I guess partial-birth abortion will fall into that category. As a pro-innocent-life supporter, this makes my stomach turn. And at what point will the government say: "You have too many kids. You MUST have an abortion." They must have been studying the Chinese way of life.

Taxpayer-funded abortions are a slap in the face to every American. Instead of putting the responsibility of an unplanned pregnancy on those who, for various reasons, find themselves in that situation, the burden is once again set to fall onto the already overburdened shoulders of those who are against it. Whether you support abortion or not, since when did it become our responsibility to pay for it? I forgot...we wouldn't want Sasha and Malia to have to live with a "mistake".

Let your voices (and those who can't speak for themselves) be heard! And if Congress turns a deaf ear, THEY NEED TO BE FIRED!!!

A Must Listen

This video leads into a radio interview from Fred Thompson's show. Pray you don't meet the criteria of "senior citizen" anytime soon.

Healthcare: Let's Start With Tort Reform

While Washington gripes about the rising cost of healthcare, they are neglecting to address one critical cause of skyrocketing prices: frivolous lawsuits.

The halls of Congress are chock full of lawyers. Do you think they'll ever address the issue of their buddies filing frivolous lawsuits? I'd expect Obama to return to Reaganomics first.

An underclass of people has developed in this country. Their mission? To get as much money as possible for blaming someone else. Personal responsibility has fallen by the wayside, and honest people are left picking up the tab (again).

If a doctor advises a course of treatment that you choose not to follow, how is it the fault of the doctor? While grossly negligent malpractice (amputating the wrong limb, etc.) deserves its day in court, there is none for the people who sue their doctor because they have a scar after surgery. How is a doctor to win in a case like that? Let them possibly die or face litigation over a scar; that's their double-edged sword.

Here are a few examples of frivolous medical lawsuits that have made the Stella Awards Case Log. The award was named after Stella Liebeck, the New Mexico woman who spilled hot coffee in her lap and successfully sued McDonald's for an undisclosed amount. These will make you sick. Thank Heaven you don't have to wait for treatment.

• Obese, cigarette-smoking woman with high blood pressure, high cholesterol and a family history of coronary artery disease suffers the expected heath problems associated with those risk factors. Why? Because her doctors didn't force her to change her habits! She sues for $1 million.
• Women sue doctors and hospital for "Needless Infliction of Emotional Distress" because they witnessed doctors rushing to aid their very ill mother. Had their case succeeded (it went all the way up to the California Supreme Court!), doctors and hospitals would have been forced to keep family members away anytime they are doing any sort of medical procedures which, let's face it, are often ugly to watch. They put your right to be there for your family members at risk.
• Schoolboy running for bus runs into a teacher. She sues the 11-year-old, claiming he "negligently and carelessly" ran into her at an "excessive rate of speed," which caused "severe and multiple injuries".
• Dying man eats a McDonald's burrito but can't take the spices in it. Wife, upset that she didn't get a refund or a free Happy Meal when she complained, decides to sue.
• Woman claims a bad hair treatment at a salon was enough to cause her emotional distress, depression and to "shut down" so much that she was caused to retire early from her university teaching job and a side job -- and the jury buys it!
• 375-pound woman steps on 53-year-old grave, which collapses under her weight. "I thought I was in a Stephen King movie," she says, which is apparently sufficient grounds for a lawsuit.
• Man uses restroom stall in city building that doesn't have a door knob. When he sticks his hand through the hole, he gets hurt -- and, of course, sues. He wins almost $3 million. His occupation? City claims examiner.
• Woman gets locked in a storage unit and didn't ever call out for help. She ended up being locked in the dark for 63 days. When she sued the storage company for $10 million, the jury wasn't allowed to hear why she didn't call out for help: she's mentally ill. They found in her favor, but were still so suspicious of her story they "only" awarded her $100,000.
• Attorney cleaning his pool decides to knock palm frond from overhead electrical wires. When he's quite naturally electrocuted, his wife knows who's to blame: the electric company and the company who sold him the pool skimmer, of course!

These are just some of the reasons that healthcare and insurance premiums have gone into the stratosphere. Tort reform NEEDS TO HAPPEN regardless of whether Congress passes the Obamacare Socialized Medicine Act. Call your representatives and senators and tell them to vote against Obamacare and start pushing for tort reform. Their jobs depend on it.

Obamacare: Change "Gov't Run" to "Public Option"

My my my. The word games these people are playing with the English language. In their latest marketing strategy of Obamacare, the Franking Commission, a bipartisan committee that oversees messages from lawmakers, has asked that the phrase "government run" be replaced with "public option". The change was made public by Rep. John Carter (R-Texas) last week.

The Franking Commission, which is authorized by law to oversee mail and other communications between members of Congress and their constituents that is paid for with federal funds, sent an e-mail to Carter's staff requesting that the wording in the message be changed.

“I received the script back from the majority, and there are a couple of changes that need to be made to make it compliant,” the Franking Commission e-mail said. “In the first paragraph (answering machine message, automatic connection) change ‘House Democrats unveiled a government run health care plan’ to either ‘the house majority (sic) unveiled a public option health care plan’ or ‘Just this past week the House majority (sic) unveiled a health care plan which I believe will cost taxpayers ….’”

“Change this on both scripts and send it back to me,” the e-mail concluded.

The email was unveiled during the same conference that Rep. Kevin Brady (R-TX) showed his healthcare chart to the public.

“Now, why can’t I say what I feel about a plan that I’m being asked to vote upon, that has been debated on the floor of the House on multiple occasions, where multiple numbers of people have used the term ‘government run health care plan?’” Carter asked at the press conference last week.

“In fact, I would submit to you, when you look at this chart, how could you not say it’s a government-run health care plan?" he said.

“Why does the Franking Commission have the right to prevent me from freely speaking what I think my folks back home ought to hear and instead tell me I have to speak what the president said last night?” Carter said, referring to President Barack Obama’s televised press conference at the White House last Wednesday.

“I think that is an abridgement of free speech,” he said.

“Why are they so afraid of this chart?” Carter said. “Why are they so afraid of a simple phrase that one member of Congress might say on a telephone town hall? Could it be that they know what this health care plan is?”

John Stone, communications director for Carter, has vowed to fight what he is calling censorship by the Franking Commission.

“We plan to take it to the [House] floor on Monday night,” Stone said. “There is going to be a massive protest.”

“And if they try to stop it with a motion to adjourn, we’re going to go outside and hold our speeches,” Stone said. “We will not be silenced.”

I may just tune in to C-Span to see how this is going to go. I pray that every American follows suit.

AARP to Members: Obamacare Will Be Great!

Holy cow! Where does a person start with this?

In the July & August issue of the AARP Magazine, an article outlines eight "myths" about healthcare reform and tries to debunk them. It makes one wonder what the angle is being that talk of "end-of-life counseling" has been suggested. Surely, our senior population CAN'T be falling for this. But then again...

Rationing is ahead for everyone should this get through; except for seniors. They won't even get rationed care. But, as it usually goes, the AARP seems to think that everything will just be peachy-keen under the Obamacare system. Have they no shame for selling out senior citizens like they do?

When Newt Gingrich suggested cutting the RATE of increase of Social Security, the AARP was one of the first groups to cry "foul". Why, then, would they sell their members this bill of goods (or no goods)? Do they think it will grant them political clout in future elections? Not with the elitist who currently occupies the White House.

Here is the article. I, of course, will interject my comments and opinions throughout.

8 Myths About Health Care Reform

By Karen Cheney, July & August 2009

And why we can't afford to believe them anymore

E-mail to a friend

Your E-mail:


Your Name:


To:

(Separate multiple addresses with commas)

Message:

(Maximum length: 1,000 characters)

CC me

Americans spend more on health care every year than we do educating our children, building roads, even feeding ourselves—an estimated $2.6 trillion in 2009, or around $8,300 per person. Forty-five million Americans have no health insurance whatsoever. These staggering figures are at the heart of the current debate over health care reform: the need to control costs while providing coverage for all. As John Lumpkin, M.D., M.P.H., director of the Health Care Group for the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, says, "There is enough evidence that it is now time to do something and to do the right thing." The key is to focus on the facts—and to dispel, once and for all, the myths that block our progress. (Since when have "facts" stopped anyone who has previously tried this crap? I think you best check yours. Let the free market system control and determine cost, you socialist!)

Myth 1: "Health reform won't benefit people like me, who have insurance."
Just because you have health insurance today doesn't mean you'll have it tomorrow. According to the National Coalition on Healthcare, nearly 266,000 companies dropped their employees' health care coverage from 2000 to 2005. "People with insurance have a tremendous stake, because their insurance is at risk," says Judy Feder, a professor of public policy at Georgetown University and a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. What's more, in recent years the average employee health insurance premium rose nearly eight times faster than income. "Everyone is paying for health increases in some way, and it's unsustainable for everyone," says Stephanie Cathcart, spokesperson for the National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB). "Reform will benefit everyone as long as it addresses costs."

“There are many ways to tackle our health care problem, but we will come up with a uniquely American solution.” (Do you mean the costs associated with frivilous lawsuits also? Tort reform is LONG overdue, and that is part of the reason insurance premiums and healthcare costs in general have gone up, you nitwit. And define "uniquely American". Do you mean free market principles will be in play since that is what our country was founded on? I highly doubt it.)

Myth 2: "The boomers will bankrupt Medicare."
If you're looking to blame the rise in health care costs on an aging population, you'll have to look elsewhere. The growing ranks of the elderly are projected to account for just 0.4 percent of the future growth in health care costs, says Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change. So why are health care costs skyrocketing? Ginsburg and others point to all those fancy medical technologies we now rely on (think MRIs and CT scans), as well as our fee-for-service payment system, in which doctors are paid by how many patients they see and how many treatments they prescribe, rather than by the quality of care they provide. Some experts say this fee-for-service payment system encourages overtreatment (see "Why Does Health Care Cost So Much?" from the July-August 2008 issue of AARP The Magazine). (The baby boomers will not bankrupt the system because the system is already bankrupt, you moron. And if Grandma ends up dying because she DIDN'T get the MRI or CT scan, the family will sue the doctor, hospital, and God himself if they think they can get money.)

Myth 3: "Reforming our health care system will cost us more."
Think of health care reform as if it's an Energy Star appliance. Yes, it costs more to replace your old energy-guzzling refrigerator with a new one, but over time the savings can be substantial. The Commonwealth Fund, a New York City-based foundation that supports research on health care practice and policy, estimates that health care reform will cost roughly $600 billion to implement but by 2020 could save us approximately $3 trillion. (First of all, where is the $600 billion going to come from? That's right...the taxpayers. The same people who are utterly fed up with the entire system and having their paychecks raided. Where is the saving going to come from? Denial of services. I bet this is the same rhetoric that Europe spewed to sell this to their citizens.)

Myth 4: "My access to quality health care will decline."
Just because you have access to lots of doctors who prescribe lots of treatments doesn't mean you're getting good care. In fact, researchers at Dartmouth College have found that patients who receive more care actually fare worse than those who receive less care. In one particularly egregious example, heart attack patients in Los Angeles spent more days in the hospital and underwent more tests and procedures than heart attack patients in Salt Lake City, yet the patients in L.A. died at a higher rate than those in Salt Lake City. (Medicare also paid $30,000 for the L.A. patients' care, versus $23,000 for the care of the patients with better outcomes in Salt Lake City.) (Los Angeles is in a state that will bilk the government to cover the costs of those who wade into this country illegally and demand services. They're trying to recoup money from anywhere and everywhere to pay for their wasteful state spending. Red state, blue state...one fish two fish)

Myth 5: "I won't be able to visit my favorite doctor."
Mention health reform and immediately people worry that they will have fewer options—in doctors, treatments, and diagnostic testing. The concern comes largely during discussions of comparative effectiveness research (CER): research on which treatments work and which don't. But 18 organizations in a broad coalition, including AARP, NFIB, Consumers Union, and Families USA, support CER—and believe that far from limiting choices, it will instead prevent errors and give physicians the information they need to practice better medicine. A good example: Doctors routinely prescribe newer and more expensive medications for high blood pressure when studies show that older medications work just as well, if not better. "There is a tremendous value in new technology, but in our health care system we don't weigh whether these treatments work," says Feder. "Expensive treatments replace less expensive ones for no reason."(Keep the drug companies out of the lobbying business. And any doctor worth his salt will gladly consider cheaper alternatives. All a patient has to do is ask. I know...I do it. You are dead wrong on your "favorite doctor" argument, because only those deemed worthy enough by the government will be practicing medicine, and you will have to take what they give you.)

Myth 6: "The uninsured actually do have access to good care—in the emergency room."
It's true that the United States has an open-door policy for those who seek emergency care, but "emergency room care doesn't help you get the right information to prevent a condition or give you help managing it," says Maria Ghazal, director of public policy for Business Roundtable, an association of CEOs at major U.S. companies. Forty-one percent of the uninsured have no access to preventive care, so when they do go to the ER, "they are most likely going in at a time when their illness has progressed significantly and costs more to treat," says Lumpkin. Hospitals have no way to recoup the costs of treating the uninsured, so they naturally pass on some of those costs to their insured patients. (Everyone has access to preventative care. They can choose to live a healthier lifestyle, and there are plenty of programs to help people learn how to do it. If they choose to wait until they go to the ER, then it is not the fault of everyone else that they didn't pursue or listen to the advice. Plenty of hospitals and clinics offer free screenings on a periodic basis. Take your mush elsewhere.)

Myth 7: "We can't afford to tackle this problem now."
We may be in the middle of a recession, but as Robert Zirkelbach, spokesperson for America's Health Insurance Plans, says, "the most expensive thing we can do is nothing at all." If we do nothing, the Congressional Budget Office projects that our annual health costs will soar to about $13,000 per person in 2017, while the number of uninsured will climb to 54 million by 2019. Already more than half of Americans say they have cut back on health care in the past year due to cost concerns. Roughly one in four of us say we put off care we needed, and one in five of us didn't fill a prescription. Clearly, the urgency is greater now than ever before. (We can't afford to do anything anymore since January 20. Don't you follow the news?)

Myth 8: "We'll end up with socialized medicine."
Some experts favor a single-payer system similar to Medicare or the health program offered to federal-government employees. Yet all the proposals being discussed today would build on our current system, Feder says—which means that private insurers and the government are both likely to play roles. Says Lumpkin: "There are many ways to solve our health care problem, but we will come up with a uniquely American solution, and that solution will be a mixed public and private solution." (Government has no business being in healthcare. Period. If you think that government is going to provide service on demand like we have now, think again. Just ask the folks in Britain and Canada.)

I would hope that the AARP would be honest with their members, but I really don't foresee that happening anytime soon. I guess we here in the blogosphere will have to do the job! Please inform your elderly loved ones of what's REALLY being pushed!